AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is complainant''s revision petition filed under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. His complaint was that he was given excessive telephone bills of his telephone. District Forum cancelled the bills and directed fresh investigation be made and till then telephone of the complainant be not disconnected. Complainant was also awarded compensation of Rs. 1,000. On appeal filed by the respondent to the State Commission, order of the District Forum was set aside. It was found by the State Commission, that investigation had properly been made. There was no defect in the meter nor was there any tampering. Rather it was found that the complainant was using the STD facility liberally. A print out contains the number of telephones to which calls were made. It is not disputed before us that number to which calls were made, were not known to the complainant. Affidavit of the Accounts Officer of the respondent was filed. This was with regard to the investigation made. With this a photo copy of technical observation report was also filed which bore signature of the Junior Technical Officer. Electric print outs were also filed. State Commission was of the view that the technical report and the electric print out were rejected by the District Forum without any apparent reason. State Commission after examining the records of the case was of. the view that it was not proper for the District Forum to quash the bills merely on the ground that average of the earlier bills was lower than the impugned bills. We agree with the finding of the State Commission. It is not a fit case for us to exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Act. Revision petition is dismissed.